Working out calories burned for a workout
Options
mellissaflegg
Posts: 15
I need to work out how may calories burned for a 30 minute walking dance workout I have just completed on youtube, wouldnt even know where to start when working these things out, I did the whole 30 minutes and I would say it was a little more than moderate I dont think I was swinging about quite as much as the lady in the video but I dont think I was slow by any standards 
any help would be appreciated 
any help would be appreciated 0
Replies
-
Google search "calories burned for different activities" gave many links. One was www.myfitnesspal.com/exercise/lookup When I chose "Dancing, aerobic, ballet or modern, twist" and put my weight to 82 kg plus 30 minutes of that activity, it said: Calories burned: 197
These are estimates, of course. As a general rule of thumb I follow the ´sweat trail´. When my heart beats reach about 70% of my max heart rate, then I begin to sweat lightly. If I then keep that level, while eg. walking or jogging, I´ll burn circa 80 kcal per 10 minutes. It´s not much, considering that a small apple is about 90 kcal, so the real key is to reduce the food intake.0 -
Heart rate monitors are great investments. You can get them as low as $40-60. I got a little bit of a higher end one for xmas and have already used its worth a few times over.0
-
Think I may just have to invest in one of those wristband things, they seem to be so much help but until I can afford one ill probably use the google thing, thank you0
-
Heart rate monitor would be a terrible way to estimate your burn for this kind of activity - it will vastly over-estimate.
For someone 200 pounds, you're looking at somewhere around 100 calories.0 -
mellissaflegg wrote: »I need to work out how may calories burned for a 30 minute walking dance workout
Log it as circuit training or light aerobics, let MFP calculate your expenditure.
0 -
Heart rate monitor would be a terrible way to estimate your burn for this kind of activity - it will vastly over-estimate.
just curious why you think a HRM would be inaccurate in "this kind of activity". i'm new to this. it seems to me that HR indicates exertion in the context of activity.
0 -
Heart rate monitor would be a terrible way to estimate your burn for this kind of activity - it will vastly over-estimate.
just curious why you think a HRM would be inaccurate in "this kind of activity". i'm new to this. it seems to me that HR indicates exertion in the context of activity.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21178923
http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2010/11/how-calorie-measurement-works-on-garmin.html
According to the above study, Polar HRMs overestimate energy expenditures by 25% during aerobic dance. I wouldn't call that vast, but it's significant. Garmin often scores better: 7-10% off, and HRMs are more accurate for some activities than for others. I'd take the dance HRM estimate, subtract 10-25%, and call it a day. It's a "good enough" estimate--in the same way official nutrition labels in the USA are only required to be accurate +/- 10%. I'm satisfied with my HRM, unless and until we have a more precise way and widely available way to measure calorie burns.0 -
mellissaflegg wrote: »Think I may just have to invest in one of those wristband things, they seem to be so much help but until I can afford one ill probably use the google thing, thank you
HRMs (with a chest strap) are pretty decent estimates for steady state cardio. The wrist only jobs are not as accurate....arm movements throw things off.
Just us low impact (or general) aerobics in MFP (for now)....Leslie Sansone, Jessica Smith type "walks" fit into this general category.0 -
mellissaflegg wrote: »Think I may just have to invest in one of those wristband things, they seem to be so much help but until I can afford one ill probably use the google thing, thank you
HRMs (with a chest strap) are pretty decent estimates for steady state cardio. The wrist only jobs are not as accurate....arm movements throw things off.
Just us low impact (or general) aerobics in MFP (for now)....Leslie Sansone, Jessica Smith type "walks" fit into this general category.
It was a jessica smith dance walk thing, Ill change it over to low impact aerobics then
0 -
CA_Underdog wrote: »According to the above study, Polar HRMs overestimate energy expenditures by 25% during aerobic dance. I wouldn't call that vast, but it's significant.
That 25% is only valid for certain levels of fitness. The nasty part is that the worse shape someone is in, the worse the over-estimate and hence greater the risk of over-eating back calories.
0 -
Heart rate monitor would be a terrible way to estimate your burn for this kind of activity - it will vastly over-estimate.
just curious why you think a HRM would be inaccurate in "this kind of activity". i'm new to this. it seems to me that HR indicates exertion in the context of activity.
Turn it around - why do you think it *would* be accurate?
0 -
Heart rate monitor would be a terrible way to estimate your burn for this kind of activity - it will vastly over-estimate.
just curious why you think a HRM would be inaccurate in "this kind of activity". i'm new to this. it seems to me that HR indicates exertion in the context of activity.
Turn it around - why do you think it *would* be accurate?
Primarily for the reason I stated: Exertion raises heart rate. Therefore I would think the integration of HR over time would be a reasonable approximation of exertion and thus calories burned, regardless of whether you are running, shoveling snow, etc.
That's why I'm curious why a HRM algorithm would be dismissed outright for some kinds of activity.
0 -
Heart rate monitor would be a terrible way to estimate your burn for this kind of activity - it will vastly over-estimate.
just curious why you think a HRM would be inaccurate in "this kind of activity". i'm new to this. it seems to me that HR indicates exertion in the context of activity.
Turn it around - why do you think it *would* be accurate?
Primarily for the reason I stated: Exertion raises heart rate. Therefore I would think the integration of HR over time would be a reasonable approximation of exertion and thus calories burned, regardless of whether you are running, shoveling snow, etc.
That's why I'm curious why a HRM algorithm would be dismissed outright for some kinds of activity.
How does a HRM know if you're dancing, shovelling snow, or running?
Which of those activities have the scientific study to establish an accurate algorithm for caloric estimation?
0 -
I wear a smart health watch and usually put it on low sensing just incase it overestimates. It's been working for me so far. Not saying it's perfect, but it seems to be consistent when I do a number of the same workouts over and over. So, it doesn't give me random numbers.
http://www.amazon.com/Smarthealth-Walking-Fit-Activity-Tracker/dp/B007WQKT1K/ref=sr_1_1?s=sporting-goods&ie=UTF8&qid=1425400055&sr=1-1&keywords=smart+health+watch
0 -
Heart rate monitor would be a terrible way to estimate your burn for this kind of activity - it will vastly over-estimate.
just curious why you think a HRM would be inaccurate in "this kind of activity". i'm new to this. it seems to me that HR indicates exertion in the context of activity.
Turn it around - why do you think it *would* be accurate?
Primarily for the reason I stated: Exertion raises heart rate. Therefore I would think the integration of HR over time would be a reasonable approximation of exertion and thus calories burned, regardless of whether you are running, shoveling snow, etc.
That's why I'm curious why a HRM algorithm would be dismissed outright for some kinds of activity.
Because the numbers that make the algorithm are input based on the person doing steady state cardio. It's a math equation, if they numbers are off on one part (the part of the equation that references steady state cardio) then the whole equation is off (the calories burned number).
0 -
Heart rate monitor would be a terrible way to estimate your burn for this kind of activity - it will vastly over-estimate.
just curious why you think a HRM would be inaccurate in "this kind of activity". i'm new to this. it seems to me that HR indicates exertion in the context of activity.
Turn it around - why do you think it *would* be accurate?
Primarily for the reason I stated: Exertion raises heart rate. Therefore I would think the integration of HR over time would be a reasonable approximation of exertion and thus calories burned, regardless of whether you are running, shoveling snow, etc.
That's why I'm curious why a HRM algorithm would be dismissed outright for some kinds of activity.
Because the numbers that make the algorithm are input based on the person doing steady state cardio. It's a math equation, if they numbers are off on one part (the part of the equation that references steady state cardio) then the whole equation is off (the calories burned number).
Ok, thanks. I didn't know that "steady state" was one of the algorithmic assumptions. That would explain why it works on running and cycling better than aerobic dance and cardiokick. I had thought it was based on the integration of HR, in which case peaks and valleys would count, but just not as much as consistently high HR.
Does that mean HRM calorie algorithms are not as accurate on 2 minute interval sprints done for 30 minutes?
0 -
HRMs are only semi-accurate for steady state cardio.0
-
mellissaflegg wrote: »Think I may just have to invest in one of those wristband things, they seem to be so much help but until I can afford one ill probably use the google thing, thank you
A "fitness tracker" isnt the same as a heart rate monitor with a strap around your body. You will be fine using MFP or Google as well. If you don't seem to be losing weight over a few weeks, then your estimates are too high. Tweak and reassess. It's an ongoing process with weight loss.
For those who are against a HRM, what method to you suggest? Using MFP or Google leaves out a key ingredient to the equation as well - intensity. I did a class last night that falls under circuit training. Take another girl who was doing the same thing (same stats as me) but not going as hard as I was (less reps, steps, etc). She did not burn as many calories as I did. But if we both look up 60 min of circuit training we will get the same calorie burn....No?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions